Overview

Organizational Behavior studies encompasses the study of organizations from multiple viewpoints,
methods, and levels of analysis. For instance, one textbook [1] divides these multiple viewpoints into three
perspectives: modern, symbolic, and postmodern. Another traditional distinction, present especially in
American academia, is between the study of "micro" organizational behavior—which refers to individual
andgroup dynamics in an organizational setting—and "macro" strategic management and organizational
theory which studies whole organizations and industries, how they adapt, and the strategies, structures
and contingencies that guide them. To this distinction, some scholars have added an interest in "meso" --
primarily interested in power, culture, and the networks of individuals and units in organizations—and
"field" level analysis which study how whole populations of organizations interact. In Europe these
distinctions do exist as well, but are more rarely reflected in departmental divisions.

Whenever people interact in organizations, many factors come into play. Modern organizational studies
attempt to understand and model these factors. Like all modernist social sciences, organizational studies
seek to control, predict, and explain. There is some controversy over the ethics of controlling workers'
behavior, as well as the manner in which workers are treated (see Taylor's scientific management
approach compared to the human relations movement of the 1940s). As such, organizational behaviour
or OB (and its cousin, Industrial psychology) have at times been accused of being the scientific tool of the
powerful.[citation needed] Those accusations notwithstanding, OB can play a major role in organizational
development, enhancing organizational performance, as well as individual and group
performance/satisfaction/commitment.

One of the main goals of organizational theorists is, according to Simms (1994) "to revitalize
organizational theory and develop a better conceptualization of organizational life." [2] An organizational
theorist should carefully consider levels assumptions being made in theory, [3]and is concerned to help
managers and administrators.[4]

[History
Kurt Lewin attended theMacy conferences and is commonly identified as the founder of the movement to study groups
scientifically.

The Greek philosopher Plato wrote about the essence of leadership. Aristotle addressed the topic of

persuasive communication. The writings of 16th century Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli laid the
foundation for contemporary work on organizational power and politics. In 1776, Adam Smith advocated a
new form of organizational structure based on the division of labour. One hundred years later, German
sociologistMax Weber wrote about rational organizations and initiated discussion of charismatic
leadership. Soon after,Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced the systematic use of goal setting and
rewards to motivate employees. In the 1920s, Australian-born Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his
colleagues conducted productivity studies at Western Electric's Hawthorne plant in the United States.

Though it traces its roots back to Max Weber and earlier, organizational studies is generally considered to
have begun as an academic discipline with the advent of scientific management in the 1890s,
with Taylorismrepresenting the peak of this movement. Proponents of scientific management held that
rationalizing the organization with precise sets of instructions and time-motion studies would lead to
increased productivity. Studies of different compensation systems were carried out.

After the First World War, the focus of organizational studies shifted to analysis of how human factors and
psychology affected organizations, a transformation propelled by the identification of the Hawthorne
Effect. This Human Relations Movement focused on teams, motivation, and the actualization of the goals
of individuals within organizations.

Prominent early scholars included Chester Barnard, Henri Fayol, Frederick Herzberg, Abraham

Maslow, David McClelland, and Victor Vroom.

The Second World War further shifted the field, as the invention of large-scale logistics and operations
research led to a renewed interest in rationalist approaches to the study of organizations. Interest grew in
theory and methods native to the sciences, including systems theory, the study of organizations with a
complexity theory perspective and complexity strategy. Influential work was done by Herbert Alexander
Simon and James G. March and the so-called "Carnegie School" of organizational behavior.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the field was strongly influenced by social psychology and the emphasis in
academic study was on quantitative research. An explosion of theorizing, much of it at Stanford University
and Carnegie Mellon, produced Bounded Rationality, Informal Organization, Contingency
Theory, Resource Dependence, Institutional Theory, and Organizational Ecology theories, among many
others.

Starting in the 1980s, cultural explanations of organizations and change became an important part of
study. Qualitative methods of study became more acceptable, informed
by anthropology, psychology and sociology. A leading scholar was Karl Weick.

Elton Mayo

Elton Mayo, an Australian national, headed the Hawthorne Studies at Harvard. In his classic writing in
1931, Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, he advised managers to deal with emotional needs of
employees at work.

Mary Parker Follett

Mary Parker Follett was a pioneer management consultant in the industrial world. As a writer, she
provided analyses on workers as having complex combinations of attitude, beliefs, and needs. She told
managers to motivate employees on their job performance, a "pull" rather than a "push" strategy.

Douglas McGregor

Douglas McGregor proposed two theories/assumptions, which are very nearly the opposite of each other,
about human nature based on his experience as a management consultant. His first theory was "Theory
X", which is pessimistic and negative; and according to McGregor it is how managers traditionally
perceive their workers. Then, in order to help managers replace that theory/assumption, he gave "Theory
Y" which takes a more modern and positive approach. He believed that managers could achieve more if
they start perceiving their employees as self-energized, committed, responsible and creative beings. By
means of his Theory Y, he in fact challenged the traditional theorists to adopt a developmental approach
to their employees. He also wrote a book, The Human Side of Enterprise, in 1960; this book has become
a foundation for the modern view of employees at work.

[Current state of the field

Organizational behaviour is currently a growing field. Organizational studies departments generally form
part of business schools, although many universities also have industrial psychology and industrial
economics programs.

The field is highly influential in the business world with practitioners like Peter Drucker and Peter Senge,
who turned the academic research into business practices. Organizational behaviour is becoming more
important in the global economy as people with diverse backgrounds and cultural values have to work
together effectively and efficiently. It is also under increasing criticism as a field for its ethnocentric and
pro-capitalist assumptions (see Critical Management Studies).

During the last 20 years organizational behavior study and practice has developed and expanded through
creating integrations with other domains:

 Anthropology became an interesting prism to understanding firms as communities, by introducing

concepts like Organizational culture, 'organizational rituals' and 'symbolic acts' enabling new ways to
understand organizations as communities.
 Leadership Understanding: the crucial role of leadership at various level of an organization in the
process of change management.
 Ethics and their importance as pillars of any vision and one of the most important driving forces in
an organization.
[]Methods used in organizational studies
A variety of methods are used in organizational studies. They include quantitative methods found in other
social sciences such as multiple regression, non-parametric statistics, time series analysis, Meta-
analysis and ANOVA. In addition, computer simulation in organizational studies has a long history in
organizational studies. Qualitative methods are also used, such as ethnography, which involves
direct participant observation, single and multiple case analysis, grounded theory approaches, and other
historical methods.

[]Systems framework
The systems framework is also fundamental to organizational theory as organizations are complex
dynamic goal-oriented processes. One of the early thinkers in the field was Alexander Bogdanov, who
developed his Tectology, a theory widely considered a precursor of Bertalanffy's General Systems
Theory, aiming to model and design human organizations. Kurt Lewin was particularly influential in
developing the systems perspective within organizational theory and coined the term "systems of
ideology", from his frustration with behavioural psychologies that became an obstacle to sustainable work
in psychology (see Ash 1992: 198-207). The complexity theory perspective on organizations is another
systems view of organizations.
The systems approach to organizations relies heavily upon achieving negative
entropy through openness and feedback. A systemic view on organizations is transdisciplinary and
integrative. In other words, it transcends the perspectives of individual disciplines, integrating them on the
basis of a common "code", or more exactly, on the basis of the formal apparatus provided by systems
theory. The systems approach gives primacy to the interrelationships, not to the elements of the system.
It is from these dynamic interrelationships that new properties of the system emerge. In recent
years, systems thinking has been developed to provide techniques for studying systems in holistic ways
to supplement traditional reductionistic methods. In this more recent tradition, systems theory in
organizational studies is considered by some as a humanistic extension of the natural sciences.